United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM O. BERTELSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mandale Williams is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana.
Proceeding without an attorney, Williams has filed a
complaint regarding the termination of his employment with
On-Demand Mail Services, LLC (“ODMS”). [R. 2]
This matter is before the Court to conduct a preliminary
review of his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2);
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir.
1997), abrogated on other grounds in Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007). A district court must dismiss any claim
that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
complaint, Williams alleges that ODMS terminated his
employment on December 28, 2016, after a female employee
reported that Williams had exposed himself to her.
Williams' complaint strongly suggests that he was working
at ODMS' facility in Pontiac, Michigan at the time,
although he indicates that ODMS also has a facility in
Hebron, Kentucky. Williams complains that the decision to
terminate his employment was “destitute of fundamental
constitutional prerequisites” because he was not
contacted during the investigation, witnesses may not have
been interviewed, a report was not generated, and there is no
indication that surveillance footage was reviewed. Williams
contends that ODMS' actions were “a direct
infringement of Petitioner's right to Due Process and
Equal Protection amongst other things” and that the
owners of the company (who are not named as defendants in the
complaint) “failed to perform a statutorily imposed
duty to enforce the laws equally and fairly, thereby
den[ying] equal protection to person's (sic) legitimately
exercising rights guaranteed them under state or federal
law.” [R. 2]
does not identify the specific legal basis for his claims,
but the Court liberally construes a pro se
plaintiff's complaint to consider whether it includes any
potentially viable legal claims. Davis v. Prison Health
Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012).
Williams' repeated characterization of the
defendant's conduct as unconstitutional suggests a
possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, any such
claim fails as a matter of law for at least two reasons.
First, ODMS is not a government entity or official, and hence
its conduct cannot be undertaken “under color of state
law.” Conduct by private persons or entities, no matter
how discriminatory or wrongful, is not actionable under
Section 1983. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). In addition,
Williams' employment was terminated more than one year
before he filed his complaint on January 3, 2018. A one-year
statute of limitations applies to claims asserted under
Section 1983 for claims arising out of conduct occurring in
Kentucky. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a); Hornback
v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Co. Gov't., 543 Fed.Appx.
499, 501 (6th Cir. 2013). Because Williams filed his
complaint beyond this one-year period, his constitutional
claims are also time barred. Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001).
also contends that ODMS had a “statutorily imposed duty
to enforce the laws equally and fairly ...” Williams
does not identify the source of that duty, but Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
et seq., prohibits disparate treatment, harassment,
and the creation of a hostile work environment. But before an
aggrieved employee can file suit under the provisions of
Title VII, he or she must first lodge a complaint with the
EEOC within 180 days after the events complained of, §
2000e-5(e)(1), must receive a right-to-sue letter from the
EEOC, and must file suit under Title VII within 90 days
thereafter, § 2000e-5(f)(1). Legnani v. Alitalia
Linee Aeree Italiane, SPA, 274 F.3d 683, 686 (2d Cir.
2001). The plaintiff's receipt of a right-to-sue letter
is not jurisdictional, but it is a condition precedent to
filing suit. Portis v. State of Ohio, 141 F.3d 632,
634 (6th Cir. 1998). Where, as here, the plaintiff's
complaint does not indicate that he has obtained a
right-to-sue letter regarding his employment claims prior
to filing suit, the Court may dismiss the complaint
without prejudice to his right to re-file a new complaint
should he obtain a right-to-sue letter. Cf. Ellis v.
Morgan Co. Sheriff's Dept., No. 3:14-CV-140-PLR,
2014 WL 7408834, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 30 2014) (citing
Randolph v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 453
F.3d 724, 732 (6th Cir. 2006)).
it is ORDERED as follows:
Williams' complaint [R. 2] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
Court will enter a judgment contemporaneously with this
matter is STRICKEN from the docket.
 Venue for this action is arguably not
proper in this district. If these events transpired in
Pontiac, Michigan, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) indicates that
this action should have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Because
the propriety of venue does not affect the ...